EMET vs. BATT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EMET (VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF) and BATT (Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF) are both Commodity Producers Equities funds. EMET is passively managed, while BATT is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, EMET returned 21.61%/yr vs 14.36%/yr for BATT. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EMET charges 0.61%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for BATT.

Performance

EMET vs. BATT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF (EMET) and Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with EMET having a 24.96% return and BATT slightly higher at 26.16%.

EMET

• 1D: -3.09%
• 1M: 10.55%
• YTD: 24.96%
• 6M: 36.66%
• 1Y: 116.88%
• 3Y*: 21.61%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BATT

• 1D: -1.64%
• 1M: 4.50%
• YTD: 26.16%
• 6M: 29.61%
• 1Y: 103.56%
• 3Y*: 14.36%
• 5Y*: 3.45%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EMET vs. BATT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
EMET VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF	24.96%	81.22%	-12.81%	-12.28%	-17.15%	-0.14%
BATT Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF	26.16%	59.70%	-13.93%	-7.05%	-32.25%	-9.25%

Correlation

The correlation between EMET and BATT is 0.85, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.85
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 12, 2021	0.83

The correlation between EMET and BATT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

EMET vs. BATT — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

EMET

EMET Risk / Return Rank: 83
EMET Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
EMET Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
EMET Omega Ratio Rank: 80
EMET Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
EMET Martin Ratio Rank: 80

BATT

BATT Risk / Return Rank: 87
BATT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
BATT Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
BATT Omega Ratio Rank: 82
BATT Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
BATT Martin Ratio Rank: 91

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

EMET vs. BATT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF (EMET) and Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	EMET	BATT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.27	3.38	-0.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.49	3.69	-0.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.50	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.60	6.12	-1.52
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.70	22.20	-6.50
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EMET vs. BATT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMET Sharpe Ratio is 3.27, which is comparable to the BATT Sharpe Ratio of 3.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMET and BATT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EMET	BATT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.27	3.38	-0.11
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.12	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.25	0.01	+0.24

Drawdowns

EMET vs. BATT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMET drawdown since its inception was -53.05%, smaller than the maximum BATT drawdown of -69.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMET and BATT.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMET	BATT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.05%	-69.38%	+16.33%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.58%	-17.03%	-8.55%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-40.50%	-47.65%	+7.15%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-61.98%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.29%	-3.44%	-1.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-24.83%	-34.78%	+9.95%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.47%	4.68%	+2.79%

Volatility

EMET vs. BATT - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF (EMET) has a higher volatility of 12.59% compared to Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) at 10.29%. This indicates that EMET's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BATT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMET	BATT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.59%	10.29%	+2.30%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	30.81%	24.67%	+6.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	35.96%	30.80%	+5.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.96%	29.57%	+3.39%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	32.96%	30.60%	+2.36%

EMET vs. BATT - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMET has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is higher than BATT's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMET vs. BATT - Dividend Comparison

EMET's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.47%, which matches BATT's 1.47% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
BATT Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF	1.47%	1.85%	3.17%	3.23%	4.14%	2.32%	0.21%	3.22%	0.89%
EMET VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF	1.47%	1.84%	1.89%	2.02%	2.56%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMET and BATT in my portfolio?

EMET and BATT have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EMET or BATT?

EMET has higher volatility (12.59%) compared to BATT (10.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMET dropped -53.05% vs BATT's -69.38%.

Which ETF is better, EMET or BATT?

On 3-year performance, EMET leads with 21.61% vs 14.36% for BATT. On fees, BATT is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, BATT has been the lower-risk option at 10.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMET or BATT?

Over the 3-year period, EMET has performed better with a 21.61% return vs 14.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMET or BATT?

BATT is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.61% for EMET.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EMET or BATT?

EMET and BATT have nearly identical dividend yields, around 1.47%.

What is the main difference between EMET and BATT?

They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Amplify. Their fees differ too: 0.61% for EMET and 0.59% for BATT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BATT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.38 vs 3.27), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.